Francis Maude: We are familiar with the numbers that the Paymaster General has just read out, but we are slightly less convinced about their relationship with the reality of efficiencies actually delivered. Will she confirm that the now much delayed Constitutional Renewal Bill will include provisions that were in the draft Civil Service Bill, which was promised for more than a decade but still has not seen the light of day in Parliament? Will the Constitutional Renewal Bill contain provisions on special advisers? Given the corrosive effect of some special advisers on the quality and integrity of government, should the Bill not place a cap on their number and reassert in law that their role is to advise Ministers and not to direct the civil service—or does the fact that Damian McBride is apparently still in contact with Ministers just go to show that a change of culture within Whitehall will not happen without a change of Government?

Robert Key: Please will the Minister make an assessment of the impact, during the economic downturn, on charities and others of the area charging regime used by water companies? The rain tax is having a substantial impact across the country. There is not a charitable organisation in my constituency, be it a charity shop, a scout group, a church or any other voluntary group, that is not being affected by the tax very adversely.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time to examine the proposal made only a few months ago—I understand that it is still subject to detailed evaluation in her Department—for lifetime legacies to be brought into the field of charitable giving? That would make a big difference at a time of very great difficulty for charities.

David Heathcoat-Amory: What discussions she has had with Ministerial colleagues on co-ordination of Government policy on democratic renewal.

Tessa Jowell: The National Democratic Renewal Council is part of the machinery of government, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right that the relevant Ministers and Secretaries of State sit on it. However, it is associated with a wider, more extensive and deeper commitment to engagement with the public in debating these issues than has ever been the case before. I am quite sure that proper consideration will be given to the arguments not just for a citizens commission—an argument with which I am familiar—but for other forms of sustained public engagement that will shape the conclusions of the consultation.

Angela Smith: The grassroots grants scheme is worth £130 million and provides small grants and endowments for local community groups. The beauty of the programme is that local communities make the funding decisions, based on local priorities. So far, almost 10,000 grants have been awarded, to the benefit of many organisations that had not benefited before. The only criteria set by the Government are that the recipients are bona fide third sector organisations with an income below £30,000. They must also meet the needs of the local community and be driven by committed local volunteers.

Anthony Steen: The number of children trafficked into Britain is increasing. The police cannot cope, and local authorities are finding that the children abscond from their homes. Why will the Government not support local, voluntary and community groups more, as they can provide guardianship, legal advice and support for children in distress? I hope that the Minister does not mention the POPPY project, as that deals only with adults. Why are the Government not supporting voluntary and community effort more, when the public sector is failing?

Angela Smith: Everyone is always pleased—indeed, the Prime Minister has said so himself—when organisations that are in difficulties gain support. The refund was a local decision, taken by the NHS North West, responding to a local need. We are all very pleased to see Christie getting the support that it deserves.

David Cameron: Today we see a Prime Minister in full retreat. In the first answer, he says that we are going to get a zero per cent. increase in public spending—that is a new one. In the second answer, he finally admits that he is going to cut, and cut deeply, capital spending. He talks about the debate about public spending: the debate is about whether the Prime Minister can be straight with the British public. Let me ask him again. He stood at the Dispatch Box, and talked about total spending year after year—that is the figure that people are interested in. As the Treasury itself says, when it comes to total spending, there is a reduction, not a freeze, in medium-term spending—I am glad that the Prime Minister is talking to the Chancellor for the first time in weeks—and given that it is talking about a cut, will the Prime Minister stand there, give a straight answer and say that once we allow for inflation, total spending is being cut?

Gordon Brown: I have already said that current expenditure will rise, and continue to rise. Capital spending will rise until 2011, then it will fall. I have already made it clear that for health, education and for all these public services, current spending will continue to rise. The issue is surely this: in 2009-10, we are raising spending substantially. We are doing so in 2010-11, and we are doing it to take us out of recession. There is only one serious party in the world that is trying to tell us that we should cut spending now—the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman must therefore admit that under his proposals, schools would lose money now, teachers would be made unemployed, Sure Start services would go, child care services would be at risk, and no teenager would get a guarantee for jobs. That is the future if the Conservatives were ever to implement it.

Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have learned overnight that two of the UK's three shipyards may close in the years ahead. Given that that would cause thousands of job losses on the Clyde or at Portsmouth, have you heard from the Ministry of Defence whether it is going to make a statement to this House or leave the Chamber without telling Members of Parliament what the future holds for shipyard workers in this country?

Jack Straw: I am grateful for recognition of the fact that I have sought to respond to proposals from all parts of the House to improve the Bill, and I shall continue to do that wherever I can.
	Let me say in response to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) that the provisions of clause 5 are completely different from those of clause 6, which we hope will be excised in its entirety in a few seconds. Clause 5 deals with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—and, for sure, various statutory duties are imposed on that. The fact that what was previously referred to as financial rules is now defined as a code relating to finance is a rose by any other name in that it does not make any substantive difference. I think I can see a twinkle in the hon. Gentleman's eye as he understands that point.
	We will remove clause 6 because we have recognised the serious anxieties expressed, not least by the learned Clerk, and because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it could have encouraged litigious constituents. I might just add, however, that that prospect remains. It happens to be the case that I was the first Member of this House to be subject to legal action from a constituent who believed that they had been badly served by me. That happened at the end of the 2000-01 Session, and a resolution of the House was tabled on that. A completely inadvertent error was made, compounding one made by the local authority, in which the name of an innocent constituent who lived at No. 9 in a street was transposed to the address of a drug dealer against whom the constituent was complaining who lived at No. 11. The local authority transposed the two addresses. My very good member of staff did the same on the basis of the mistake by the local authority, and I was the subject of legal action. The House very kindly decided to indemnify me against the £33,000 that that mistake cost. That risk remains, but I have no wish to compound it.
	As we are currently discussing clause 6, I shall come on to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) when we discuss clause 10. I see that an important amendment to it has been tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) to which I am very sympathetic, and I will make a further decision about it in the course of these proceedings. With that, I ask that clause 6 be excised from the Bill.
	 Question put and negatived.
	 Clause 6 accordingly disagreed to.

Bernard Jenkin: I will not detain the House for long, and I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of our proceedings—although not so that I could have moved the amendment in my name in the previous group; I had no intention of wasting the House's time on that, given the Secretary of State's statement that he was withdrawing the clause concerned.
	My amendment in this group echoes the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that Members subject to the procedures of IPSA and the commissioner should be properly informed of what is going on and have proper advice.
	My particular concern relates to a personal experience, which I discussed in abstract terms with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, so as to avoid lobbying him about a complaint that might arrive in his in-tray. I had found that I had inadvertently breached the rules, so I went to him to present him with a letter, which was, in effect, a self-referral. He said that he was minded not to accept it, but when I asked him what action he would take, he said that he would wait for a complaint. I then asked him what he would advise me to do, to which he said that he could not advise me, because he might receive a complaint and have to adjudicate on the case. I asked him which servant of the House of Commons could advise me on the matter, but he told me that nobody could. I then asked whether I should seek legal advice—that seems to relate to the import of my right hon. Friend's amendment—but he said that his body discourages from people taking legal advice because it makes its proceedings so much more protracted.
	I have great sympathy with that view, and now that, between IPSA and the commissioner, we are having a separation between the management of rules, and the investigation of and adjudication on breaches, it should be simple for IPSA and/or the commissioner—here I link my amendment 45 with my amendment 46, which seeks to amend clause 8—to ensure that a servant of IPSA or a Clerk in the service of the House, which means someone who does not cost the Member money and does not cost the House of Commons additional money, is made available to the Member who is subject to an investigation or to a direction by the commissioner under clause 8. There should be an informal way of ensuring that right hon. and hon. Members have access to independent advice without having to resort to expensive lawyers.
	That would be simple to arrange, and my two amendments seek to put those obligations on IPSA and the commissioner to ensure that that advice is afforded to Members without additional and unnecessary expense. That would avoid the situation wherein hon. Members are left completely isolated in a system that they are fighting. The accusations may be unjust or arise out of a misunderstanding, but we still ought to have a means of providing, in a fairly relaxed way, relatively informal advice. Obviously it remains open to a Member of Parliament to obtain formal legal advice if he or she so chooses, but I hope that my proposal would save right hon. and hon. Members a great deal of anxiety, while also giving comfort to IPSA and the commissioner that the Member was capable of dealing with the matter in a informed and practical way, and was not being left on his own or facing huge legal expenses.

Dominic Grieve: Thank you, Sir Michael. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to respond positively. It is clear that clause 7 moves us towards a much more structured system of investigation than we have at present. Whether or not the current investigation regime falls within what we like to call parliamentary privilege, it certainly happens in-House. I am the first to accept that much of what will be investigated probably will not concern parliamentary privilege in any way at all, and that is why investigating whether an MP has misclaimed or overclaimed is of very little consequence to the wider constitutional framework of this country.
	However, if we move down this road, it is important that we acknowledge that we will have to look very carefully at the fairness of the system that we introduce. It will come in for more scrutiny, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was right to say that it will be justiciable—that is, anyone unhappy with any aspect of the proceedings will be able to seek judicial review.
	In that context, the amendments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) are extremely sensible. They would allow people to self-refer, but the most telling proposal is for a system that would allow very minor matters to be handled without a report having to be made.
	One problem that we will face was touched on by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). In a sense, Members of Parliament are sole practitioners, and we handle offices and budgets that are quite substantial. Also, I suspect that most Members of Parliament work rather longer hours than the average, and that the administration of our offices is not the thing that we do best. Our capacity for making mistakes is very great.
	When our documents going back to 2004 were published, I looked through them and found that it was not difficult to pick out examples of things that might have been done differently. Perfectly reasonably, most of us tend to sign off on things presented to us by members of staff. Keeping our office expenses under proper scrutiny is not what we are likely to do best.
	We need a system that recognises the importance of self-regulation. People must be able to own up quickly to making mistakes without the fear that they will be dumped on and dragged through the mud. Also, we need a system that can reflect the de minimis rule: that is, we must ensure that people do not have to go through convoluted procedures for absolutely minimal mistakes. Those points are dealt with by amendment 10, which I consider to be extremely sensible.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) introduced new clause 11, which is a substantial improvement on what we have at present. I do not know whether he is minded to press it to the vote, and I appreciate that it may be possible to do something about the proceedings when the Bill comes up for further consideration elsewhere. My judgment, however, is that new clause 11 is a substantial improvement, and my concern is that not putting a similar provision in the Bill will lead, because of justiciability, to a decision by the commissioner being overruled or overturned.
	I also have great concerns about the potential impact of the procedures on disciplinary decisions. Such decisions may be found to be in conflict with decisions taken by the commissioner that are subsequently reviewed and found to be wanting. I shall say more about this in connection with clause 8, but I do not think that the House can lightly ignore the problem.
	Yesterday, we discussed at considerable length questions of where Parliament's rights will be intruded on. The problem is not so great with clause 7, but the fact is that the clauses cannot be looked at in isolation. I make this point because the Secretary of State may wish to respond now as well as later, but the linkage between investigations, enforcement and offences must be looked at as a whole.
	I have the most serious concerns about what we are doing. If we confine the commissioner's activities to looking at our expenses and salaries, there will be no great difficulty, and that was exemplified in the evidence given yesterday by the Clerk of the House to the Justice Committee. However, conflicts will start to arise once we stray outside of that, and the potential will grow for the courts to intrude into the House's affairs in ways that touch on our constitutional responsibilities. I hope that the Secretary of State will be open minded now—I suspect that he will be, as it has been hinted that he may accept some of the amendments—and that he will also bear what I have said in mind when we consider later amendments.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has also tabled some amendments that highlight areas of anxiety in exactly the same way. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to provide some reassurance that those problems will be addressed. It may be that they can be addressed now, but they could also be dealt with by looking at the matter in its totality. We need a proper set of rules to govern investigation and inquiry, and those rules should also cover hon. Members' ability to get proper advice as an investigation proceeds.

Douglas Hogg: I just want to say a brief word about amendment 10 and new clause 11. I am a strong supporter of amendment 10, which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), for the reasons that were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). It is entirely right to say that individual Members could face vexatious complaints, and that would be very bad because it would put the hon. Member in question under a serious cloud and inhibit him or her in the performance of his or her duties.
	One cannot exclude the possibility of co-ordinated and coherent campaigns against individual Members, in which vexatious complaints are made. The amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire addresses that, in part, by providing for the hon. Member in question to make a repayment, if the sum involved is modest and if there has been an oversight. The amendment would guard against errors of a de minimis kind. I think that the Justice Secretary is saying that he is minded to accept the amendment. If he does not, let us hope that he will accept the spirit of what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire is doing.
	I note that new clause 11, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), has the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because the amendment is drawn from the text of the Committee's report. It also has the support of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Those are two all-party committees of considerable authority, and the fact that they are both signed up to the new clause seems to be of considerable importance. As the hon. Gentleman said, the commissioner's report could have dire consequences for the future of any right hon. or hon. Member affected by that report. That is even more true of the IPSA report. It is therefore important that the House should try to ensure that the process is conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The hon. Gentleman's new clause ensures that that happens.
	I have only one proviso to make. The process has two stages—at least, it does at the moment, but there may be more later. The first stage is the investigation by the commissioner, leading to a report to IPSA. IPSA is then obliged to enable the right hon. or hon. Member to make representations, so there is a second stage. I am not entirely clear—this is a matter for further consideration—about whether all the protection afforded by new clause 11 should apply to both stages or one stage. That is a matter on which there needs to be some reflection. My feeling, at this stage, is that the full panoply of the protections should apply to the hearing of the representations by IPSA, and that there should be a lesser stage of protection relating to the inquiry undertaken by the commissioner. The commissioner should be obliged to accord quite a lot of protection to the hon. Member concerned, but not the full panoply that is contemplated in new clause 11. That full panoply should be confined to the IPSA hearing.

Jack Straw: I want to remind the House of this, and it is fundamental: it is astonishing how quickly the focus of a debate and of concern in the House can move, but there is a public outside that remains highly sceptical, as well as cynical, about the way we have operated our affairs up to now. We must bear that in mind all the time. One of the major problems that has been faced in this terrible expenses scandal is that no one outside the House accepted the legitimacy of decisions made by the Fees Office or any other part of the House about whether an expenses claim was or was not acceptable. That is why there must be an external adjudication of such decisions.
	The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield seems to want it both ways. Of course we must get it right, but if there is to be an external authority, it must be able to come to some decisions, in a parallel way to decisions that would be made by similar bodies with similar tasks external to a particular profession and so on, not with lesser rights to the individual, nor with more. We need to end up with a situation where, if there were misconduct—not inadvertence, error or light negligence, but misconduct—by a Member, that could lead to a criminal prosecution and/or discipline in the House, and equally, where there is an allegation against a Member, but that allegation falls to be dismissed by the authority—or subsequently by the Standards and Privileges Committee, but let us leave it at the authority—that is accepted as having authority behind it.
	I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, which we will consider. We will respond in the other place. This evening will not be the end of proceedings on the Bill. It will go to the other place and come back here. One of the serious concerns that I have about a raft of amendments that have been tabled—not, I may say, by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—is that their overall effect is to emasculate and undermine the basic purpose of the Bill, which was accepted by Members on all sides and all three party leaders.

John Redwood: It is.
	My reading of the drafting suggests that none of this is subject to parliamentary approval. IPSA needs the agreement of the Speaker's Committee, but we are not told what happens if the Speaker's Committee does not agree. IPSA could publish and try to assert its view regardless, because it appears that it is primus inter pares in these matters. No procedure is set down for reconciling disputes between the Speaker's Committee and IPSA. The implication is that once IPSA has published, preferably with the agreement of the Speaker's Committee, then that is the statement from which not only this House but the courts, if they become involved, will have to operate.
	That is totally unacceptable. We are being asked to override not only the Standards and Privileges Committee but our own law-making powers by delegating a crucial element in how this complex and bureaucratic system is going to work to a draft from IPSA that it could not possibly undertake for several months until we know who the chief executive is and that person has a staff who can get to work and take advice. Presumably they would then come to see right hon. and hon. Members from the Standards and Privileges Committee. However, as the drafting makes clear, they do not have to take the view of those Members—they can come up with their own independent view and assert that.
	For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will realise that this proposal is impractical and cumbersome, that it cannot work, that it will delay justice rather than give justice, and that it will make the House of Commons look ridiculous rather than showing that we take these matters seriously. The overriding of procedures that have worked well is symbolic of a Government who love to railroad their way through traditional institutions that are already functioning in the name of modernisation without thinking about the difficult consequences that my follow. This will not produce more justice or a better administered Parliament; nor will it deal with cases that the present system would not otherwise deal with. It is a recipe for disaster.

Dominic Grieve: It is very simple: if the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the Select Committee on Justice, he will see that everything after clause 8(4) does nothing to add to the regulatory powers of the IPSA, but everything to undermine the independence of this House. By taking out one, the rest fall down like a domino, and that is why it should go.

Robert Smith: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's caution. In particular, he was right to remind the House of the importance of the independent handling of expenses, salaries and finances. However, if we are cautious about what we allow to go through in the Bill, so that it focuses on that core function, but then decide after more consideration that there are other functions or ways in which we want to go further, that it is surely safer than allowing things to creep through in the Bill that are dangerous or have risks attached, and then repenting at leisure as we try to sort them all out.

Mark Durkan: I fully agree. Indeed, I have supported a number of amendments and, even in this bunch, there are a number that I would support and some that, if adopted, would make the need for others disappear. However, I worry that some of the amendments would go so far as to leave a significant hole in the Bill. That might provide a site for which planning permission could be given to do more things in relation to other issues. However, I would prefer to hear from the Justice Secretary or the Deputy Leader of the House before drawing those full conclusions.
	On clause 8(6), we definitely need some provisions in respect of a protocol, but I believe that subsection (6) is wrong as drafted. I do not go as far as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), in saying that it is a recipe for disaster or that the sky will fall, in the way that he colourfully suggested it would. However, perhaps we have all missed something. Perhaps we should have amended subsection (6), so that it said that IPSA and the Speaker's committee or the Standards and Privileges Committee would seek to agree protocols with "the following". Instead, subsection (6) says that IPSA will prepare a statement or a protocol on how "the following" will work together. That means not just how "the following" will work with IPSA and somebody else, but how "the following" will work together. It therefore seems that something needs to be done about subsection (6).

Barbara Keeley: The point that I keep asserting is that we need to be clear about the public confidence, and the public do not have confidence in some of the processes that we have been talking about.
	I want now turn to amendment 17.

Alan Beith: The hon. and learned Gentleman must read clause 9 in conjunction with clause 10, one of the consequences of which is that if a Member said in a debate, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did openly yesterday, "I do not approve of this legislation, I do not see how it can work and I will probably be subject to an offence under it. If I am, I will not pay the fine and I will go prison", those words could be adduced in court proceedings. Prosecuting counsel could say, "You say that this was an accidental mistake, but in fact your own words, as reported in  Hansard, incriminate you."

Andrew Dismore: Is not the position compounded by the fact that we effectively have no de minimis rule in relation to outside earnings? The advice that we have had in the Standards and Privileges Committee from the registrar is that if somebody makes a speech and gets a bunch of flowers, they should register it. If they do not, they are potentially in jeopardy. It is really right that somebody should face a criminal sanction for failing to declare a bunch of flowers?

Jack Straw: Just a second, if I may.
	As for subsection (2), the second limb of clause 9, this House has to my almost certain knowledge—with, if not the support, then certainly the acquiescence of the Opposition—supported the insertion of provisions concerning the registration of financial interests into the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Local Government Act 1972, which is a Conservative Act, and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, as well as other provisions. As I said to the Committee earlier, what is sauce for the goose needs to be sauce for the gander. The same is true in respect of paid advocacy, with the exception that those offences are rather less onerous than those that the House has imposed on Members of other Administrations.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman, who usually makes good points, made a rather poor point by saying that this clause can apply only to Members of Parliament. Well, the offences that we have imposed on the Scottish Parliament can apply only to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the ones that they imposed on local councils can apply only to local councillors. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) suggested with a slight smile on his face that there was some deep dark motive behind the provision, but there is not at all.
	As to the point that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield about the current code and what I accept are ambiguities in it, these offences would apply only to the new provisions, which would come into force under clause 5, and they would have to be subject to a clear decision by this House and would certainly have to be more clearly defined than the existing provisions.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their report. As he will know, there is a serious difference on that issue between independent jurists here—the Clerk of the House and his colleagues—and senior parliamentary counsel.
	Why would I want to pursue an unpopular clause unless it was felt to be necessary? [Hon. Members: "The Prime Minister told you to."] No, no. To be blunt, it has not featured on the Prime Minister's radar at any stage. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] The Bill has, but—I draw a veil over the operation of the Prime Minister, but the idea that he has been worrying about clause 10 of this Bill when he has me to worry about is nonsensical.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Offences

Amendment made: 87, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out from 'included' to the end of line 28 and insert
	'by virtue of section 5(10) (prohibition on paid advocacy) in the MPs' code of conduct relating to financial interests.'.— (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Clause 9, as amended,  ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Alan Duncan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I wish to make reference to the significance of what we are doing in creating the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in terms of the law that will affect us and our expenses under the Data Protection Act 1998. Very simply, one of the most important elements of the Data Protection Act is who is responsible for holding the data and therefore who is responsible for answering freedom of information requests—and ultimately, I suppose, for making decisions along the lines of what is published and whether it has to be redacted and, to our great embarrassment, how.
	The Bill will set up IPSA, but it remains unclear as to when responsibility for controlling and holding the data will pass to it. It is obviously absurd to assume that that responsibility can pass on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, because the apparatus to handle it will simply not exist. It therefore makes good sense, in order to have an orderly transition, to try to specify a date on which the baton of responsibility is passed from this House to the new independent body, perhaps with an enormous collective parliamentary sigh of relief, leaving it to others to decide how data relating to our expenses can be handled, published and released.
	The new clause suggests that there should be a period of two months between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and the date on which the responsibility should formally pass. It is a very simple, uncontroversial proposal. If, for any reason, the Government believe that it should be, say, three months, we would not argue strongly about that. However, the principle of making it absolutely clear when this House relinquishes responsibility for the administration of our expenses is essential if we are to avoid more of the calamitous coverage that we have suffered from over the past few weeks.
	I merely ask the Minister to tell the House whether the Government are prepared to accept the new clause, in whole or in principle. Depending on the reply, we can either decide to withdraw it, and perhaps let the other place table another one, or to press ahead with it.

John Redwood: One of the many muddles that the Bill is getting Parliament into is the muddle over how staff will transfer and when the body will be established. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) has tabled this new clause suggesting some clarity over the data controller aspect. However, it is not possible to put a time on when that could take place unless we know how long it will take to set up the body and to appoint all the relevant staff.
	I hope that the Justice Secretary will use this opportunity to say something to our staff, who are in need of reassurance or some statement from their employer about how they are going to be treated. Does he know when the Bill might be enacted? Is it possible that we can do this quickly, perhaps within two months? It will be easier to do it if the current arrangements for staff transfer, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 or some similar arrangement, apply and if staff have been told that they will transfer so that the system can continue much as it has up to this point. If that is not the intention, a good employer would warn staff and start consulting on what the arrangements will be, and it might be quite difficult to hit this particular deadline.
	Although I welcome the spirit of my hon. Friend's new clause—it is right that we need clarity over the data protection aspects—I am worried about the general issue of whether this body can be set up quickly and whether the Justice Secretary thinks that its staffing arrangements will be more competent and better than those that we currently have, and if so, why he thinks that. Above all, he owes to our staff, now—it should have been done some time ago—proper procedures for informing and consulting them.

John Redwood: Yes, and some of us made that point in previous debates, when it was more relevant. The relevance of timing here, as I am sure my hon. Friend had in mind, is that the new clause is about the timing of part of the transfer of duties. As he and I are trying to point out, the duty cannot be transferred until the body has been set up and is working. We need to be satisfied that it is working competently and sensibly.
	There are a lot of people involved, and the way in which they have been treated is shoddy and appalling. I am sure that if it had happened in the private sector, the Government would have been jumping up and down complaining and asking whether things had been done properly. I hope that we will have a statement on the matter, and that the new clause will give us an opportunity to probe a little more how all the arrangements for a smooth transfer will be put in place if the Government are determined to carry on with the establishment of this quango.

Edward Garnier: It is a matter of regrettable record that in the past 18 months or so, this House in its various guises has been in dispute with the Information Commissioner about applications in relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the keeping of our expenses records and so forth. That has led to matters being taken to the High Court on two occasions, at considerable public expense. None of us—or at least only a very few of us, and I was not one of them—was asked for our view on that matter, but we are now none the less staring at the consequences of the High Court's decision.  [Interruption.] It is interesting how one gets conflicting instructions from time to time. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), "Relax, mon brave."
	That having been said, I wonder whether the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister is to respond to this very short debate, will be able to tell me whether they or any other arm of the Government have communicated with the new Information Commissioner to see how he is approaching the Bill. For example, I wonder whether he has a view about whether the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should become the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998.
	I entirely agree with the thrust of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) made, but we need somebody to deal with the matter. Unless that is explicit in the Bill, it will cause unnecessary confusion. If we are not very careful, we could get into the same sort of difficulty as in the past.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) for raising this matter. It may help if I explain how the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will work in respect of the new authority.
	Section 1 of the Data Protection Act defines a data controller as
	"a person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed".
	Whether someone is a data controller is not a matter of election by that individual but subject to an objective test. As soon as IPSA arrives at a situation in which it is determining the purposes for which, or the manner in which, any personal data that it holds are to be processed, it will become a data controller. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, but I hope that he will accept that the new clause is not necessary.
	The new clause mentions "two months". On Second Reading, which seems two years ago, but was only two days, several stirring victories and one defeat ago, I gave an undertaking about the likely time scale. I suggested that, with the likelihood of Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations being available in October, and taking account of the time for running a competition to appoint the senior people to the authority, for the authority then to appoint a chief executive and for the transfer of staff, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) raised, we are aiming for Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals, and the new authority, to start operating on 1 January next year. It is not remotely likely that the authority will be up and running in two months. Assuming that we get Royal Assent by the end of July, that would mean establishing the authority by the end of September.
	I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) accepts that the first part of the new clause is unnecessary and the second is not achievable. Apart from that, it is fine. It has provided an important platform for a useful debate.
	Under clause 14, clauses 12, 13 and 14 come into force by statutory instrument, and different days can be appointed for different purposes. That is standard form, so the exact time at which the authority comes into force depends on when it is ready. I should also point out that that, like the Bill, will be the formal responsibility of the Leader of the House, because the measure is essentially a creature spawned by the House, not by a Department—although I have been delighted to play my role in ensuring that it is improved, as it has been.
	As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will recall, paragraph 27 of schedule 1 and paragraph 10 of schedule 2 provide that IPSA and the commissioner become public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; the House has agreed that. Those provisions will come into force when the authority has some information that will make it the subject of FOI requests. That will happen as soon as it becomes operational. I hope that that helps, and that the hon. Gentleman will therefore be willing to withdraw the new clause.

Jack Straw: Colleagues will find Government amendment 7 on page 1059 of the Order Paper. It makes it clear that although allowances relate to a Member, money under allowances can be paid to somebody else, which may include our staff or those with whom we contract.
	Government amendments 8, 9 and 10 are relatively minor, and I commend them to the House. As for Government amendment 12, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will recall that he asked whether a serving member of the senior judiciary could be appointed. We are now making that clear in the Bill, and I am happy to oblige.
	Government amendments 13, 14 and 15 will require the Speaker, rather than the IPSA, to lay the relevant notices and orders before the House, which is important. That is consistent with, for example, the arrangements in respect of the Boundary Commission. As the Secretary of State for Justice, I am the conduit for orders from the Boundary Commission for changes to boundaries, but I am required to lay the order before the House and ensure that it is put to a vote. Our amendments square the circle, in that there has to be a sponsor for the provisions, namely the Speaker, but they have to come before the House. However, what it does with those orders is entirely a matter for the House.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. At some point in the next hour, we may or may not get Third Reading. However, the reality is that the Bill in its present form is incoherent and filleted. It will have to be put back together again, but it is extraordinary that it is in another place that that will happen. Yet again, a Bill that intimately concerns this House will, at the end of the day, leave this House in a form in which it could never go on the statute book. If ever there was a lesson to be learned about the failings of our procedures, which, as has rightly been said, are just as important as any other failings in our allowances in diminishing the standing of this place, it is that. Although I welcome the one or two amendments that we are dealing with to tidy things up, the truth is that we are tidying something up that, at the moment, is a hovel of a piece of legislation. A great deal will have to be done to it before it is inflicted on the world outside.

George Young: I am grateful for Government amendment 7, which reproduces, at 10 times the length, the four words that I had drafted as amendment 6 to clause 4 yesterday. I want briefly to speak to amendment 2, in the hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) and I might score a final quick single before stumps are finally drawn.
	The order-making power in clause 13 is wide-ranging and substantial. It provides for the Government and the Speaker to draw up a scheme for transferring property rights and liabilities of the House to IPSA and for the order containing such a scheme to be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, which may or may not lead to a debate and a vote.
	As drafted, the clause is objectionable on two grounds. First, it does not guarantee proper scrutiny of such orders; secondly, it gives the other place power to annul a scheme that affects only this House. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough would deal with both objections by requiring all orders containing transitional provision to be laid in draft before the Commons only and by making them subject to the affirmative procedure order, thus obliging the Government to make time available either on the Floor of the House or Upstairs to provide the opportunity for a vote to take place. I hope that the amendment will find favour with Government Front Benchers.

Alan Beith: Amendment 7 is obviously necessary, but I am afraid that it will never be sufficient to disabuse sections of the press of the view that MPs claim, personally collect and leave in their bank accounts a wide range of allowances for constituency office rents and staff wages. Numerous newspaper stories still appear implying that those allowances, which are actually transferred on to other people, are for the personal profit of the Member. I have often thought that a similar analysis of the salary of the editor of a newspaper that attributed to him the wages of that newspaper's staff and the rent of the building would produce similarly bizarre effects. I am glad that the Government have realised that direct payment is a valuable part of the system.

John Redwood: I want to highlight Government amendment 9, which the Justice Secretary did not explain. It is interesting because it strikes out lines 5 to 7 on page 8, which define
	"the Leader of the House of Lords",
	as meaning
	"the Minister of the Crown who is for the time being designated as Leader of the House of Lords by the Prime Minister".
	I presume that the reference to the Leader of the House of Lords is being knocked out because it might be thought inconvenient—for reasons of privilege and their Lordships' interest—to have any reference to the Lords when the Bill goes to the other place. That leads one to question the original intent. It looks to me as if the drafting suggested that the Lords should be covered, but the reference is being struck out quickly from the Bill before it goes to the other end of the corridor.

Stuart Bell: I wish to speak to amendment 1, which I tabled.
	It was never expected that the Bill would be retrospective, but it is important for us to put the question of allowances behind us, and it is important for the Bill to assist in that procedure. I can tell the House that the review of allowances that has been authorised over the last four years has been put in train, that the House of Commons Commission, with the approval of all party leaders and Members on both sides of the House, has begun its work, and that the terms of reference have been agreed. Sir Thomas Legg is the distinguished chairman of the review body; his independence is absolute and sacrosanct, and must be seen to be so by the public. The review will cover four years of receipts, and it will be minute and thorough.
	My amendment is intended to remove any prospect, should it exist, of a further review. I believe that a sword of Damocles would have been held over each and every Member if retrospection had operated, whether rightly or wrongly. It has been suggested to me that there might be a gap between the independent standards authority's taking over and Sir Thomas Legg's review, and that a mishap in the interstices—perhaps relating to misbehaviour—might not be brought to the attention of the new body, which might cause a vacuum in the proceedings. As we know, however, the Committee on Standards and Privileges is still there, will continue to be there, and can exercise its own authority and powers should anything fall within those interstices.

Andrew Dismore: I rise to speak on amendments 4 and 3, as realistically this is the only occasion when I can raise the question of the lack of a right to appeal as they deal with issues relating to procedure and the setting of those procedures. I do not want to repeat at length what I said about this on Second Reading, because that would be going back over old ground, but I think it is important to recognise that there is no right of appeal for any Member in this process. If we are going to start looking at having outside regulation—whether through the commissioner setting his own process or, as the Bill stands, through IPSA—to whom can a Member appeal? If amendment 4 passes, a report will not have to be made.
	The Government argue that the Bill is compatible with the right to a fair hearing because IPSA is independent, but my Committee report tagged to the debate does not accept that in respect of IPSA's functions, the rules devised, the procedural safeguards designed and the various investigation and enforcement powers. All that adds up to saying that IPSA is not an independent and impartial tribunal as required by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Lord Bingham, in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege said:
	"I am always rather uneasy if any decision by anybody, however wise and authoritative, is final and immune from any challenge, and therefore the reason why I think it would be desirable to have a route of challenge available is simply to eliminate that situation.
	That was just one point that he made; it was not the full quote. He went on to say that the way to deal with this matter would be to have a right of appeal from the House to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I had tabled an amendment to that effect, but that was, unfortunately, not reached because of the guillotine—that is another example of the problems that we have been experiencing.
	If an outside body is to carry out our regulation and we are, thus, trying to externalise all this, we must have the same protections as any other professional body in those circumstances. Until recently, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council both had rights of appeal to the Privy Council for matters resulting from their determinations. That position has changed slightly, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has developed expertise in determining such matters. It has learned to use this power sparingly and appropriately, and it would therefore be appropriate to consider that body as an option. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council already has a role in determining whether a Member of the House is subject to a statutory disqualification under section 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, so no great new principle is involved. What I am proposing would simply mean that if a Member is subject to disciplinary proceedings, they, like anybody else in the outside world, would be entitled to due process. Part of that involves the right of appeal, which is simply not provided for in these provisions.

Dominic Grieve: I, too, wish to see the House move on as quickly as possible to the sunset clause, but the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) merit consideration. In the vote that we have just had, whereby clause 10 was removed from the Bill, the Committee made it transparently clear that whatever regime is set up to deal with our finances and allowances externally, it cannot and must not infringe article IX of the Bill of Rights. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply to even this short debate, will assure us that the Government recognise what the Committee was saying in that decision and will ensure that whatever is put together in the House of Lords to rebuild this Bill will be done in a way that achieves that objective.
	I say that because although we have removed the clause that said that the Bill of Rights does not apply, we have not secured anything that expressly says that it does apply. I hope that the Secretary of State will, in the spirit of the vote that took place—the Committee was trying hard to reach a consensus—indicate that he fully appreciates what that message was. It is clear that it is possible to have a regulatory regime in which our allowances and salaries are dealt with externally to this House without intruding on the Bill of Rights. That can happen only if the Secretary of State is prepared to re-examine clauses 7, 8 and 9—some other areas may also need to be examined in a bit of detail—in order to ensure that what is put together conforms with the protection that the Bill of Rights affords to our independence, and freedom of speech and action.
	Without that, we will end up having further arguments when this Bill returns from the House of Lords. Although the Bill is not in a fit state to go on to any statute book anywhere as it goes now to the House of Lords, I am pleased that the way in which it is going there gives the other place a perfectly clear indication of what it must do to put the Bill right. I hope that the Government will co-operate in this process. Mindful of that, I hope that when the Secretary of State responds to the points that have been made, particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, who has performed such a sterling role in the passage of this legislation, he will provide the assurance that he recognises that the Bill of Rights will not be infringed upon in this legislation.

Alan Duncan: I beg to move amendment 5, in page 9, line 39, at end add—
	'(4) This Act and any Statutory Instrument made under this Act shall cease to have effect on the first anniversary of the day on which the Act is passed.'.
	We might get a little squeezed in the Third Reading debate, so may I take this opportunity to extend the usual courtesies to the Secretary of State and his staff? We on this side of the House have sat through many discussions over the past few days and we are very grateful for the courtesy and reasonableness with which the right hon. Gentleman has treated us and entered into those discussions. It has been an exemplary way of handling what has been a difficult and controversial Bill. We and others believe that it has been hurried through but, given all those pressures, we could not have asked for more courtesy and reasonableness in the manner of its handling.
	Colloquially, this amendment is a sunset clause—a notion often discussed in this House, but insufficiently and rarely applied to legislation. Variations of the amendment were used for emergency powers granted by the House to deal with issues such as terrorism. It is a very sensible instrument for any piece of legislation that is unduly controversial and which may have unforeseen consequences.
	This is such a Bill. There can be no doubt that it has been hurriedly cobbled together, and perhaps even more hurriedly rushed through this House. It is very rare to have Second Reading, Committee and Report on three consecutive days. A Bill of this magnitude and consequence will have effects that none of us will have been able properly to understand, even after the vigorous debate that we have enjoyed. It therefore makes good sense to put a natural expiry date on it, so that in a year or so the House is required to come back and take a look at how it has worked.
	There may be court cases, changes in the behaviour that we can display in the House, and effects on right hon. and hon. Members, and possibly even our staff, that we have not envisaged. It is simply sensible and uncontroversial to allow us to look at the Bill in the cold light of day after it has been in place for a year, and so inevitably after there has been a general election. Nothing could be worse than making bad law and letting it lie on the statute book. The surest way of making sure that bad legislation comes back before this House is to make its return automatic by passing a sunset clause. That way, if the Government of the day wish to renew the Bill, believe that it has been of value and is working, or believe that it should be amended, the Bill can be started again, have its sunset clause triggered, or be brought back for amendment.
	I urge the House to do something that it always says it would like to do, namely agree to a sunset clause. Let us do it and just see how it works, so that the Bill, which is likely to be agreed to, can come back in a year's time, and we can see whether the House looks upon it as we have done this week.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) has made the point that sunset clauses are familiar to the House because they have been used in legislation dealing with emergency provisions in terrorism situations. Of course, one of the reasons why that legislation is deemed to be temporary is that it is hoped that the conditions and requirements demanding the legislation are temporary. Sunset clauses have been used in various bits of Northern Ireland legislation during the peace process, as institutions were established, different arrangements were put in place, and safeguards were introduced that it was hoped could later be disposed of. Sunset clauses were inserted in the hope that the circumstances and environment would change so the law would not have to remain permanently on the statute book, and there would not have to be a full Act of repeal.
	The situation that we are discussing is very different. I do not think any of us believe that the fundamental credibility question, and the issue of having independently verified and monitored standards in relation to parliamentary expenses and financial probity, will pass or be temporary. We are not talking about just a wee 2009 affair, courtesy of  The Daily Telegraph; the situation goes deeper than that, and we are kidding ourselves if we think we can deal with that in a sunset clause. We are in danger of undermining the authority and standing of IPSA if we say we are setting it up on approval for a year. We have already inserted parliamentary control into an awful lot of what IPSA does.

Mark Durkan: I want to finish and let other people speak. The situation is something of a hologram. We are saying that IPSA is independent, but for other purposes we are saying that there is parliamentary control. We are also saying that IPSA will have a shelf-life of one year, and if we do not like what it does, we can dispose of it completely. How we are meant to recruit people of competence and credibility to the authority on that basis I do not know. With a sunset clause, there is the danger that we might be saying, "This is temporary for a year. It could change next year." Do Members of this House want to fight a general election on the issue of expenses and how they are managed and controlled? That would be a very dangerous virus to come into a general election campaign. That is the danger of a sunset clause.

Iain Duncan Smith: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
	I support my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who moved the amendment, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will look at it carefully and understand why we need it. The measure worked perfectly well in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, as we were able to make sure that we constantly revisit legislation we may have concerns about.
	We have rushed the Bill through. We would not need the sunset clause if we had not done so. We are now seeing clauses knocked out at the last moment, and promises made across the Floor of the House that in the other place—the unelected Chamber—changes will have to be made. That is not right. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a powerful speech, in which he talked about our taking control of the affairs of the House. What we have shown in the past two days is that we are not fit to take control of anything, because we would rather have an unelected House do our work for us—that work is relevant to us, not to them—which is absurd. The reason for the sunset clause is clear: we need to revisit the measure in time to make sure that any mistakes can be rectified.
	The problem is absolutely clear. It is simply that our expenses system has been abused and is weak, but we could change it in short order. We did not need a series of major changes to our rights, responsibilities and privileges, cobbled together on the back of that requirement. What has happened, on the whim of the Prime Minister, is that we now have this extraordinary piece of legislation, which is ill-thought-through and liable to major change in another place. Surely the purpose tonight is not to be party political. The purpose— [ Interruption. ] People may laugh about that, but this is not party political. If the hon. Gentleman had an iota of courage—and he does not need to look at me like that, because I voted against my Government on many occasions—instead of sneering he would vote for the amendment, knowing that he voted for those who come after him to take control of this place. Surely this is the point: let us make sure that we have a chance to revisit the measure, and overturn it if necessary.

Jack Straw: The better way of handling the burden of what the hon. Gentleman says is for all parties to commit themselves to monitoring the legislation carefully—I certainly do, on behalf of my party—and ensuring that adequate time is provided for any amending legislation that is needed, which could be in a single Bill—

Jack Straw: —or as part of a second Bill.
	I give way to my hon. Friend, and there are others who wish to speak to the amendment.

David Winnick: If a sunset clause were agreed to, would there not be a cynical feeling among the public, which the Opposition refuse to accept, that we were setting up the authority because of the scandal and the way the House has been brought into disrepute? Surely no one denies that. The public would say, "If the new body is too effective, Parliament will do away with it." We have learned the lesson with Elizabeth Filkin, who was a very effective Parliamentary Commissioner and was dismissed because she did her job too well.

Jack Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says on that point. Although there are real preoccupations for this House about how this House operates, we need to remember that the reason why we are introducing the provision for IPSA is that we—ourselves, collectively—failed to self-regulate. The idea that we put the issue back on the agenda by adopting this, I am afraid, really rather silly amendment is ridiculous.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you realise that there is a seething anger in this House because we have no time at all for Third Reading at all? This is a Bill of monumental importance, and the only reason why we are debating the current clause is that it has been rushed through. Is there something you can do? Can I move a motion, and will you accept it?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Lords amendments 1 and 2 would make all recipients of carer's allowance eligible for the saving gateway. That issue was discussed in detail during the Bill's previous stages in this place, and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) for raising it. In response, the then Economic Secretary said that the Government were minded to table amendments on the matter in the other place— [Interruption.]

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As I was saying, the Government intended to table amendments in the other place, and my noble Friend Lord Myners did that at the first opportunity. I should like again to place on record our thanks to all those with caring responsibilities. We will continue to do all we can to help and support them, and I am glad that we have been able to find a mechanism to do that while staying within our original policy objectives.
	As hon. Members know, the saving gateway is targeted at working age people on lower incomes. As the then Economic Secretary explained, carer's allowance can be claimed by anyone of 16 or older, as long as they meet the various requirements, and there is no upper age limit. Indeed, 375,000 of the 880,000 claimants of pension age. Making everyone who is entitled to carer's allowance eligible for the saving gateway would extend eligibility to a large number of people from outside our target group.
	We have therefore looked for a more targeted option. The amendments would make those receiving carer's allowance eligible for the saving gateway, rather than everyone who is entitled to receive it. Even without the amendments, around 225,000 claimants of carer's allowance would be eligible for the saving gateway through qualifying benefits. The amendments will add a further 300,000 carers to that number, taking the total to more than 500,000. I commend the amendments to the House.

John Redwood: When we last considered the Bill, I asked the Minister to tell us something about what kind of interest rate would be made available and how much good news there would be for savers under the scheme. Absolutely no information was forthcoming, so I hope that she might be able to supply it now that we are extending the scheme, because given the people to whom we are extending it, we want to ensure that it would be valuable to them and worth their attention.
	It is absolutely typical that such a proposal should come forward with no costing, no regulatory impact assessment and no comment from the Minister about why the scheme might take off and why it might help the people whom we would all like to help. I am afraid that, yet again, we are seeing an appallingly bad standard of work.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am grateful for the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who said that they thought that the Bill was a good measure. On my reading of  Hansard, the idea was that we would find a mechanism to bring carers of working age into the scheme—and we believe that we have done so.
	I was asked how much the amendments will cost. We estimate that they will make an additional 305,000 people eligible for the saving gateway, which will cost about £4 million in 2012-13, falling to about £1 million in a steady state. That will not affect our overall estimates of the numbers eligible for the scheme or its costs. We have always said that we expect about 8 million people to be eligible for the saving gateway; previously, our exact estimate was £7.7 million, which the amendments will increase to £8 million. The change will not impact on the cost estimates of the scheme, which have been rounded to the nearest £10 million. Those therefore remain at £130 million in 2012-13, £110 million in 2013-14, £100 million in 2014-15 and £60 million in steady state.
	I hope that we can all agree that we have found a mechanism to bring carers of working age into the scheme, and I also hope that all will welcome that.
	 Lords amendment 1 agreed to , with Commons privileges waived .
	 Lords amendment 2 agreed to , with Commons privileges waived .

Mark Hoban: I still do not quite understand why the Government have decided to specify in the Bill that the maturity period should be no less than 12 months, given that their intention from the outset has been for it to be two years and the Minister has confirmed that the regulation will provide for it to be two years. It will just add to the confusion if one period is specified in primary legislation and a different period is specified in secondary legislation.
	As was pointed out in Committee, one reason why the maturity period is important is that it establishes a time during which someone with a saving gateway account will develop a saving culture. It was argued then that a reasonable period of maturity would give people time to develop the practice of putting money aside regularly. During the public evidence sessions that preceded detailed scrutiny of the Bill, Teresa Perchard of Citizens Advice supported a two-year period, and the Economic Secretary agreed when he was leading on the issue. We tabled an amendment to that effect in Committee, but, while accepting the strength of our argument, the then Minister was not very keen for any particular period to be specified in the Bill.
	It is perplexing that the Government have decided to specify a period, and that it is not the period that they want to be specified in secondary legislation. They seem willing to move some way in recognising the Opposition's view, but not willing enough to go further, have the courage of their convictions and specify in the Bill what they believe to be the right period in the context of secondary legislation. I hope that, when she winds up this relatively short debate, the Minister will explain why she considers it appropriate for two different periods to be specified.
	As for Lords amendment 8, we are pleased that the Government have accepted the proposals that we made in Committee. We wanted further use of the regulation-making power to be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure in three areas because of the impact on costs. We felt that changes relating to entitlement and maturity payments needed proper parliamentary scrutiny rather than being rushed through without proper debate in the House. I feel that it is important to protect taxpayers in that regard.
	In the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lady Noakes tabled amendments to extend the affirmative resolution to powers to set the monthly deposit limit, to set the maturity period, and to set the number of accounts that people could hold. They affect the cost of the scheme, and we are pleased that the Government eventually succumbed to pressure in the other place to reflect those changes. The Government are very keen to talk about democratic renewal and the role of the House of Commons, yet it appears that the only amendments they are prepared to accept are those made in the other place. If the Government are genuine in wanting to embrace the views and reflect the opinions of this House, they should accept more amendments tabled in this place when they are tabled, rather than waiting for pressure from the other place to get them to change their mind.

Jeremy Browne: At the risk of sounding somewhat graceless, I, too, wish the Government had gone a little bit further and had done this with a little less reluctance, but having said that, I am pleased that the amendments are in place and that this degree of progress has been made.
	The Bill itself says very little. Anybody who picks up a copy from the Vote Office will not necessarily be very well informed about the nature of the scheme. There are 29 delegated powers in a Bill that has only 32 clauses. I will not give an exhaustive list as I did that in Committee, but the Government are, for example, able to do the following: change the rules governing the issuance of a notice of eligibility; change the rules governing the approved institutional criteria used by HMRC; limit the size of monthly deposits; decide the level of the maturity payment; and impose requirements relating to statements. There is a whole list of criteria that the House is being asked to nod through and to allow the Government to make those changes as they see fit at a later date. The fact is that those changes are substantial to the scheme. We do not have the ability we might wish to influence the details, as they are left out of the Bill.
	Having said that, some progress is clearly better than no progress. Lords amendment 8 asserts the use of the affirmative procedure to decide the maturity period, the definition of an eligible person, and the requirements for opening an account. That is definitely going in the right direction, because without proper discussion of such details in the House we would be asked to approve a shell of a proposal with very little meat inside it.
	It is, however, a shame that we are not being asked to vote for a Bill which has specific measures such as the 50p rate, the two-year maturity period and the £25 a month deposit limit. That is not treating the House in the way that it should be treated. I am enthusiastic about the amendments as they are preferable to what existed before, but the Government could have gone further still.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I welcome the fact that the Front-Bench spokesmen of both main Opposition parties appear to welcome the amendments, and I hope they will support them. I think that the only point I need to come back to is the reason why the maturity period in the Bill is not less than 12 months and the rest is in regulations. As I have said, we believe that less than 12 months would not represent saving, and that is why we are stating that minimum in the Bill. We want to leave flexibility for regulations to set the minimum period. Leaving that in secondary legislation provides the flexibility to alter that feature of the accounts if, for example, the experience of operating the national scheme suggested a different account length would better achieve the aims of the saving gateway. That is why we want to put that in regulations. Under Lords amendment 8, the maturity period would be subject to the affirmative procedure and to parliamentary scrutiny in this House.
	 Lords amendment 3 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
	Before Clause 26

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7.
	At various stages during the passage of the Bill, hon. Members and noble Lords made a case for a review of the saving gateway to be carried out in due course after the launch of the accounts. I know that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) spoke on this matter on Report.
	In response, Ministers in both Houses made clear the importance that they attach to a future review as a way of assessing the success of the saving gateway against the objectives that we have set for it. This amendment would impose a statutory requirement on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to commission an independent review of the effect of the saving gateway. It would also set the time scale for the review and its publication, and specify that certain matters will be considered within it. The results and conclusions of the review would be set out in a report that to be laid before Parliament.
	As hon. Members may be aware, independent evaluations of two saving gateway pilots were carried out by the Personal Finance Research Centre at Bristol university, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Ipsos MORI, and we envisage following a similar model for this review. It will consider the effect of the scheme against the objectives that we have set for it: to kick-start a saving habit among working age people on lower incomes; and to promote engagement with mainstream financial services. Therefore, the matters addressed in subsections 1(a) to (d) of the proposed new clause directly relate to the development of a saving habit among account holders, account holders' engagement with mainstream financial services and barriers to the opening of saving gateway accounts. In addition, subsection 1(e) would allow for other relevant matters to be considered as part of the review. I commend this amendment to the House.

Mark Hoban: As the Minister has said, we have been calling for a review of the scheme's effectiveness both in this place and in the other place. Let us be clear why such a review is important. We have supported this measure because we believe it is vital to encourage savings and to develop a savings culture among people on lower incomes in this country and this scheme is aimed at improving that culture. It is, in many respects, a relatively generous scheme—it has a 50p matching rate—and we want to ensure that the taxpayers' money that is being used to support the scheme is being spent wisely and effectively, and that taxpayers get a return from this scheme through the encouragement of a high level of savings among people on low incomes.
	The Bill was deficient when it first came before us because it did not contain a statutory requirement to conduct a review, and attempts were made both in this place and in the other place to amend that. To an extent, we welcome this amendment, but it contains gaps, two of which, in particular, were demonstrated in the amendment tabled in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Noakes—I shall return to those in a moment.
	I am concerned that the report will be laid before this House only within seven years of
	"the coming into force of section 6."
	During the intervening period a significant amount of taxpayers' money will be spent supporting this scheme. I hope that the Government see the seven-year period not as a time scale within which the report will be brought before this House; I hope that they do not wait until the seventh anniversary and then report. The sooner we know how effective the scheme is, the better it will be. We will then be able to consider whether it is a good use of taxpayers' money or whether changes need to be made to the matching payment, the maturity period or the range of eligibility to make it more effective in encouraging the savings culture.
	The first of the two areas omitted from the Government's amendment but addressed in that of my noble Friend relates to take-up. The Government amendment talks about the effect of saving gateway accounts on attitudes to saving, the behavioural impact of the accounts, the involvement of people who use them with the institutions offering the financial services and the barriers to opening the accounts, but it does not mention take-up, whether the take-up rate is adequate and whether that rate should be improved. I understand that an annual report will be made on the number of people who open these accounts, in line with similar statistics produced on the child trust fund, but it would be helpful to have an independent review of the level of take-up and of whether that rate is sufficient to justify the existence of the saving gateway account. The Minister will point out that subsection (e) of the new clause includes the opportunity to add other areas to the review and I hope that she will confirm that she will ensure—should she be in a position to do so in seven years' time—that the take-up rate would be included.
	The second area omitted is financial education. A series of pilots took place as part of the long evaluation of this idea, and they suggested that account opening should happen in conjunction with financial education. We are talking about a group of people who do not necessarily have bank accounts, and they may be sceptical about, or uncomfortable with, dealing with financial institutions. Support may be needed for people opening these accounts.
	If we are to encourage a savings culture, we need to provide incentives to save and accounts that people are happy to save in, and we must provide financial education in parallel with that, to persuade people of the long-term benefits of saving. I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to include explicit reference to monitoring the financial education that is provided alongside the opening of the accounts. Perhaps the Minister can say whether financial education will be covered in the independent review and should be taken up under subsection (e).
	We have called for independent reviews of the system, so we will not oppose the amendment, but the Government could have thought more broadly about what the independent review will cover and have been more timely about when it will be laid before Parliament.

Jeremy Browne: My party, for the reasons that have just been outlined by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), supports this legislation, partly because it encourages self-reliance in people on very low incomes. It will encourage them to save in a way that gives them a greater stake in society and to interact with financial constitutions in a way that, in many cases, they do not feel able to do. Both of those objectives are laudable, and that is why we support the legislation.
	Even though there have been pilot studies, we have had to made educated guesses about how the system will work in practice. We cannot be certain, for example, that the 50p matching rate will not be excessive and, therefore, place too great a burden on the taxpayer in achieving the scheme's objective. On the other hand, it might not be a sufficient inducement for people who will be encouraged to take it up. We do not know whether the two-year period will be successful. We do not know whether the maximum contribution is set at an appropriate level—too high or too low. We cannot be certain about the cost or the penetration of the scheme—the two are linked. We may wish to increase the inducements, because the people whom the scheme is meant to attract are not sufficiently attracted on the existing terms. Or it may be that the costs prove to be prohibitive and the Government wish to scale back the scheme in the future.
	It is important that the Minister makes a commitment that when this review comes to this House, it will be debated, not just noted. More importantly, the seven-year period is excessive. We will have at least two general elections between now and then. I do not mean to be unkind, but the Minister's predecessor was in office for nine days, so while it is possible that she will be in post in seven years' time, it is not unreasonable to expect some ministerial changes in the Treasury in that time. More importantly, we will have had more than enough time to review the issues that I have raised and for a reasonable opinion to be formed about the workability or otherwise of the legislation. Like the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), I would encourage the Government to think about the lifetime of a Parliament as being a reasonable scale. Four years would be an appropriate amount of time to make a reasonable assessment, would fit into a natural political cycle and would also be sufficient to gauge the success or otherwise of the scheme.
	As I have made the case previously for such a measure, like the hon. Member for Fareham we will not oppose the measure before us although it is not precisely that which we would have introduced had it been left in our hands. On that basis, and with those caveats, we are happy to support Lords amendment 7.

Theresa Villiers: Twelve hours after the stock exchange, 11 and a half hours after "Today" programme listeners, and some four hours after the House of Lords, we finally get to hear the news officially. What we have heard is evidence of the incompetence and failure that has characterised the Government's handling of the rail franchising system. Two franchises have collapsed in the space of two and a half years on one of the nation's most important transport corridors, on which millions of people and businesses rely, both in England and Scotland. To borrow a well-known phrase, to lose one east coast franchise might be said to be unfortunate; to lose two looks like carelessness.
	The Secretary of State told their lordships that he hoped that the next franchise would be better than the last. Clearly, for Labour, it is third time lucky, or so it hopes. On the "Today" programme, the Secretary of State seemed to be saying that National Express East Coast was already in default of its contracts, yet that allegation was not repeated in the written statement, or the statement from the Minister today. Does the Minister stand by the statement made by his boss this morning?
	The Secretary of State has claimed that the "Nat Ex" holding company is not prepared to "stand by" its loss-making subsidiary. Does the Minister regret that his Government signed up to a deal that caps the liability of the holding company, and apparently entitles it just to walk away when the going gets tough? Does he accept that the incredibly detailed—even invasive, some would say—due diligence process that the Department for Transport carries out in relation to the credibility of franchise bids and bidders has wholly failed in this case? How much will re-letting the franchise cost? How much did the original franchise process cost? What assessment has the Minister made of alternative solutions to direct Government control, such as getting another operator to run the line under a management contract? How much will the fiasco cost the taxpayer in total? Will the money come out of the control period 4 funding settlement? If not, which part of the DFT budget will be raided to cover it? National Express East Coast was due to pay £1.4 billion over the lifetime of the franchise to help fund CP4. What will be the shortfall on that income? How will the Minister plug the resulting black hole in the funding for CP4?
	Can the Minister tell us whether he expects the Government to be able to exercise the cross-default clauses, either immediately or in the future, and will he guarantee that in that event, the Government will not let services be disrupted? How can the Secretary of State possibly say with credibility today that 15 out of the country's 16 franchises are completely fine, and that it is just a "Nat Ex" problem, when everyone knows that there is a red-light list of other franchises? Will the Minister come clean and tell us which franchises are on it?
	In conclusion, this debacle shows that Labour learned nothing from the collapse of the Great North Eastern Railway franchise. It has continued to press train operators to make wildly over-optimistic bids. It has wholly failed to get a grip on rising costs in the rail industry and in Network Rail. It has tried to plug the gap by squeezing passengers for higher and higher fares. It cut a deal that capped the liability of holding companies and allows them to walk away from their subsidiaries with impunity. They cannot wash their hands of the problem by saying that "Nat Ex" got its numbers wrong. The extensive risk assessment by the Department for Transport of the business case underlying the franchise bid has wholly failed, and as a result we have had a yet another accidental renationalisation by Labour to add to the lengthening list that began with Network Rail. It is yet another blow to the public finances, and yet another bill for Labour failure has landed with the long-suffering taxpayers, who have already received such punishment at the hands of this increasingly incompetent Government.

Sadiq Khan: That led us to the mess that was Railtrack, but the hon. Lady has audacity to tell us that the private sector is naive, and has been hoodwinked by civil servants to bid higher than it should for a contract to run the east coast main line. The idea that the chief executive who resigned today from National Express and Brian Souter from Stagecoach are patsies who have been hoodwinked by the Department for Transport to overbid for a contract beggars belief, as does making knee-jerk policy on "Sky News", rather than looking at the facts.
	I have talked about vigour. Anybody who has taken the time to read the National Audit Office report—not simply the research prepared by a researcher—entitled "Letting Rail Franchises 2005-2007", will see that it says of the approach to running rail franchises:
	"The Department's arrangements for identifying and managing risks, including handling the failure of a train operator, are well planned and follow good practice."
	Let us look further.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) chunters from a sedentary position, and says, "You've had plenty of practice." Forty-one franchises have been given out—two have failed, or 4.97 per cent. When I want the hon. Gentleman's advice, I will ask him for it. The NAO, which is the expert, rather than people who go for a cheap soundbite on "Sky News", says of value- for-money assessment:
	"The Department's approach to rail franchising produces generally well thought through service specifications and generates keen bidding competition."
	I would have hoped, on a day on which a private company making lots of profits seeks to walk away from a franchise, and seeks to walk away from passengers who will receive a less good service unless we step in, that the Opposition party would join us, and stand side by side with us, and say to that private company, "This is not good enough. We need a holding company to protect the public and make sure that we have a calm period to reflect on the failures that have occurred, so that when the contract is retendered we have the best possible arrangements not only for passengers but for taxpayers."

Norman Baker: I mean no disrespect to the Transport Secretary, the Minister of State or you, Mr. Speaker, but it is not satisfactory that we are having the statement seven and a half hours after we would have had it, had the Secretary of State been a Member of this House, rather than of the House of Lords. We need to find a way of having Secretaries of State from the Lords in the Chamber to make statements. If that is not possible, the Minister of State should be able to make statements ahead of the Secretary of State, at the normal time.
	In respect of the action taken today, first, it was the right decision not to give in to pressure from National Express for further handouts from the public purse. Had the Secretary of State done so, there would have been a queue of train operating companies at his door wanting contracts renegotiated and wanting further handouts from the public. He had no option but to take the position that he did. However, there will be a cost—£1.4 billion was the premium that was to be paid. There will now be a loss of that premium payment, although a profit will be made from the operation in the private sector. However, there will be a gap. Can the Minister tell us what the gap will be between what National Express would have paid and what will now be recouped from the public purse?
	Secondly, does the Minister agree that if National Express finally defaults, as now looks extremely likely although it has not defaulted yet, that will call into question its competence and commitment as an operator? Under those circumstances, would it not be right for the two other franchises that it holds to be removed from it? After all, why should National Express keep the franchises that it deems to be in its interest and lose the one that it wants to hand back to the public?
	The matter has been under discussion for some time in the Department for Transport. The Department ought to have reached a view on whether it is legal for the two other franchises to be taken back by the Department, or whether they are deemed to be separate entities under the National Express heading. Can the Minister tell us what that legal advice is and whether it is possible, should the Secretary of State wish to do so, for the companies to be taken back into the public sector, or has that not yet been decided? If the Department ends up with all three franchises, can the Minister assure the House that it has enough qualified management to hand in order to run all three competently?
	Lastly, I turn to the position that the Government have set out with the intention of re-letting the franchise from the end of 2010. I am delighted by the comments of the Chair of the Transport Committee. Instead of retaining the franchise temporarily before re-letting it, what consideration has the Minister given to retaining it for a much longer period as a public interest comparator driven by passenger-oriented targets, instead of the pure financial considerations of the Treasury? Would not such an approach provide a passenger-friendly benchmark that would drive up performance in the other franchise areas? Will he consider that proposal?

Sadiq Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for looking at the facts before asking them. Much as I am tempted to do so, I will not indulge in discussion of constitutional matters and where is the right place to make a statement and at what time. His comments about us not caving in to the private sector are welcome, and I appreciate his support.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of important questions. On cost, we can recover some of the cost from the performance bond worth £32 million. We will be entitled to the premium until National Express walks away, which is its intention, as set out to the stock market today. Other premiums will become available once the contract is re-let. The revenues that we receive will depend on numbers of passengers who use the rail service, the class of passenger and the amount of fare that they pay, so I cannot give specifics, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important question about what we call cross-default—that is, the ability of the Government to take back dirty contracts that the parent company has in subsidiary holding companies. We are exploring all our options, but he will understand if I do not disclose privileged legal advice on the Floor of the House. I appreciate—I have read the quotation—that, if one wants a secret kept a secret, one should announce it on the Floor of the House, but he will appreciate that representatives of people whom we may sue may be watching the proceedings or may read  Hansard. What I can say is that we will explore our options. We have tried to ensure that we preserve taxpayers' interests and passengers' interests. That means exploring all the options that are available to us.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about our ability and the holding company's competence, and that is a really important question. We have an excellent designated chief executive taking over, and we have an excellent team that we think will be able to take over the running of the contract as and when National Express decides to walk away.
	On the question whether we want to keep the service in Government hands through a holding company or a permanent holding company, or to tender for a new franchise, let us be clear: one reason why we are able to invest record sums in our railway service is the revenues that the franchises bring in and the premiums that they pay; one reason why we are able to do the work on High Speed 2, which will lead to a high-speed link from the south to the north, is the system that we have in place; and one reason why we are able to electrify lines as fast as we possibly can is the investment that we receive from that structure.
	There are two ways of securing revenue in the rail sector, and the hon. Gentleman knows about them: one is via fare payers, and the other is via taxpayers. We are trying to ensure that we maximise as much inward investment in the rail sector as we can.

Sadiq Khan: I shall try to respond to those three points in one sentence. There will be no reduction or change in services; we are talking about a prestige line, and that is one of the reasons why we are investing in high-speed links—not only to Manchester, but to Leeds, the west midlands and Scotland.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. That is one of the reasons why Labour Members believe in regulating. When we re-tender the contract, we will ensure that such things do not happen, instead of allowing the market to dictate what happens on trains.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman has given one example of the sort of thing that we will be considering when the contract next goes to tender. We will see whether we can include such things as a new station. We need to ensure that we take on board the concerns and issues raised by parliamentarians and stakeholders to get the best deal possible for passengers.

Mark Durkan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has clearly reflected the very significant changes taking place in banking over the past couple of years, but one thing that has not changed is how this House deals with the issue of banking. Given the considerable degree of intervention and public ownership in the sector and despite the Trojan work of the Treasury Select Committee, this House surely needs to come up with some better device for dealing with banks in the current situation. Perhaps having a specific Select Committee on banking would put manners on some of these proceedings.